Month: March 2019

In a surprise move today, the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling with wide-reaching impact on the future selection of America’s leaders.

A number of issues have challenged the judicial system all the way to the nation’s highest court. These have included the ongoing allegation of voter fraud, disenfranchisement of minority groups, and Gerrymandering–all to ensure the continual reelection of incumbents.

The role of the Electoral College raises concerns, especially when the winner of the popular vote is repeatedly not the candidate who is elected. There are the credible—and frequent—charges that foreign governments interfere with US elections.

The Court ruled that selection for high office—cabinet members, ambassadors, the President and the Vice President—will from this point on be determined by polls, rather than elections. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., stated that it was his pleasure to present the courts judgement with a ruling and an opinion that were both unanimous, with no hint of dissent.

Our decision is based on the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We have determined that equal protection under the law is impossible when each of the individual states determines voting processes and procedures independently, delegating some of said authority to subordinate organizations, including counties, parishes, and political parties.

We anticipate that intelligent citizens have questions, which we will attempt to answer:

“Should this matter not be resolved by Congress?” The US Congress has shown the inability to address legal issues more complex than renaming post offices. Its failure to act in any meaningful manner since 1941 has demonstrated the de facto and ultimately the du jour abdication of Congressional authority. Given that members of Congress exercise neither authority nor accept responsibility, they will continue to be elected.

“What about the President? Doesn’t he have a voice?” The court acknowledges that the President does indeed have a voice, as well as a Twitter account, a Press Secretary, a Communications Director, and Fox News.

“Then why not let the President address this issue by Executive Order?” Based on previous Executive Orders exceeding Constitutional authority, the Court deemed that this was inappropriate.

“What about the Vice-President?” The powers of the Vice President cannot exceed those of a sitting President.

“Then why does the Judiciary have the authority to make this ruling?” The precedent has been well established that the other branches of government routinely defer decisions, particularly difficult decisions, to the Judiciary. The Court is merely adhering to said precedent.

Death and destruction has always been fascinating–for observers, not participants. Crucifixion, hanging–especially when accompanied by drawing and quartering, and beheadings of any type have always been crowd pleasers. The brutality of man against man could draw a crowd, amuse it, and leave it calling for more.

In your twentieth century, there was the term “like watching a train wreck.” It’s nigh on impossible for anyone to turn away because a train wreck is factually as well as literally, extraordinary.

I understand that. I may not approve, but I understand it. The observers don’t set out with the intent of seeing carnage, but happen to be there when it does.

On the other hand, when Facebook (which I also do not understand) has to remove 1.5 million–MILLION–videos showing the slaughter of people trying to pray in New Zealand, I’m astounded. Actually, I’m disgusted. A man who lived in a sewer and treated others the way I did is not easily disgusted.

In the millennia from my time to yours, it would be reasonable to expect to see some small amount of societal progress. Instead, people in the twenty-first century can easily put Emperors Tiberius, Nero, and Caligula to shame.

Over the millennia, I’ve seen kingdoms and nations rise and fall. Some nations are created by Divine edict, by military conquest, by discovery, or even the will of the people. However, most tend to die by the same method.

They rot from within.

The wars you’ve seen recently–Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam–were all failed or failing states. They either were already corrupt, or ripe for corruption. That’s not only how nations fall, it’s why nations fall.

Through corrupt means, the elites enrich themselves at the expense of the general populace. As the gap widens between the haves and the have-nots, the people become divided. The division may be political, religious, or philosophical, but most often it’s economic. The wider the gap between the wealthy and the rest of the population, the more likely it will devolve into destruction.

Hitler came to power because the German people were economically desperate due to reparations from the First World War. Hitler was an outsider–a non-elite–who was viewed as a possible savior. Lenin was also an outsider viewed as the solution to Russia’s problems. The Nazis and the Communists each set conditions for a division within their country.

Who will be next? There are a number of likely candidates. What’s your guess?